Perhaps the founders of Systema ran with a particular sub-set of SAMOZ drills/concepts and elaborated them into a new pedagogical approach. There was obviously a major shift in emphasis at some point, away from the kata/waza of jujitsu and towards improvisation.

Quoting from the WorldWide Grappling thread:

technique is an offensive or defensive (or combined) action that manipulates the opponent, so that points can be scored, the opponent placed in a position of disadvantage, or the fight/match won. However, a technique may be implemented unsuccessfully and not achieve any of the above goals. Worse, sambist can end up in a worse position than before he attempted his technique.

Unsuccessful techniques initiated without set-ups, and often as single movements without any relationship to the larger picture of the overall contest, come up more often in beginners than from experienced fighters. This led Spiridonov to come up with the concept of transitions (which was echoed by Volkov and called something else by Oshchepkov) where each and every technique is enriched through its relationship to other techniques where there are transition points in every technique that correspond to certain stages (and levels of completion) of other techniques. Logically connecting the appropriate techniques through good transitions is a key to successful completion of techniques.
Therefore, we would have a standing arm lever moving to the ground to transition to a double hammer lock to transition to binding the opponent to transition to raising him back to standing to transport him elsewhere. In sport, this could simply be 2 points for a half decent throw that transitions to 2 points for a hold down that transitions to a submission hold to end the match. Lastly, this could be a muffed technique morphing into a new, but successful one such as a blown inside sweeping hip throw transitioning to a far ankle pick transitioning to a reverse knee bar.

From there, training the body for speed and power can add to the overall effect of the technique�s success, but that is as far as the technique can be taken �technically�. To increase the success rate of the technique, it must be converted to a �ploy� which could just as easily be translated to �gambit�, or �trick� as in the old phrase, �ju jitsu trick�.

Hypothetically, this concept, in combination with the study of biomechanics and the premise that SAMOZ was supposed to be visually "subtle" and expend only minor energy, might easily have led to an emphasis on physical and psychological relaxation under stress. It would only be a short step from that type of training into the relaxed improvisation drills we see in modern Systema.

Still very interested in exactly at what point that shift happened, though.

Perhaps the founders of Systema ran with a particular sub-set of SAMOZ drills/concepts and elaborated them into a new pedagogical approach. There was obviously a major shift in emphasis at some point, away from the kata/waza of jujitsu and towards improvisation.

Thanks for the link.

This does seem pretty likely from what I've seen. To expand upon this my guess is that Spiridinov's style in it's original form was probably a very different animal than what we would now call systema.

yes, however Systema's drills are more complicated that the "ploys" The old man drilled us with a series of "keys" that I think were much the same idea. You took key#1 and did everything you could with it: vs. stab, vs. choke, vs. mount=>rollover etc.

The utility was in how expiediently & thoroughly you could use 5 or 6 principles. Systema diverges into much more elaborate improvisation and all I can gather is this is Ryabko's direction.

Which is fine, its just not very Spiridonovian in that Dynamo Academy worked out specifically what would work in given situations. Same goes with Oschepkov's work. The advanced guys worked out the initial moves/counter moves.

In Systema, it seems like the ploys, keys, transitions and outcomes are totally up in the air. Which is a place where lack of fighting background can be a disadvantage.

I like the development of haptic, properceptive and instinctual movement, ALOT. A big factor in Russians vs. Americans is that Ruskie kids genearlly start in gymnastics (did I already say this here? If so I'm sorry!) at a young age so you can imagine how well they're setup to learn from new angles, movements etc.

Two of my best students have a background in gymnastics work and its absurd how quickly they learn and aren't distracted by details. The typical N American ma-er that tries Systema isn't going to have this physical base to work from.

Its where I hear some of the guys here talking about the "graduate course" concept of why they like Systema. I totally get that, like totally.

Why is my Engrish so bad today? Like look@that horrible post^"worked out...work...what would working work...//...dork!"

Can't help but wonder whether some of the confusion/lack of articulation surrounding "how Systema works" can be put down to language problems. Ryabko doesn't speak English and Vasiliev's English was pretty marginal when he first started promoting the art. That, plus the fact that Systema pedagogy is so unusual, might have led to a sense of mystique about how it actually works, to the point where some second and third-generation instructors either aren't equipped to articulate the process, or just assume that it's "not the Systema way" to explain these things in straightforward terms.

All hypothetical of course, but IMO raw newbies need to have these things explained.

I totally agree re. kinesthetics, proprioceptic training etc. That's been the basis of my own training and teaching for years, which is all good for me, but not so good for people without a similar background.

I agree with the graduate school thing and the gymnastic training thing. My trainer mentioned that I was catching on fast because I had played tennis with a Russian coach for many years and he seemed to have taught me a lot of the kinetic stuff that systemists like to use. I was also told by some people that they view systema as a frame with which they can contextualize other styles. Thats why I think I am also gonna start training Kenpo-Jujitsu with the same people I do systema with.

Also, my understanding is that systemists spar extremely hard at higher levels, they basically have this meeting in outside Toronto once a year that is a two week long full combat school in the Ontario woods.

I came home from practice today and my uncle was over. He asked me about my day and I mentioned systema. He said wtf was that and I showed him some stuff, his reply was thats the SAMBO that I practiced when I was a kid. He then explained that in Russia there was sports and combat based sambo and then there was military SAMBO and the military SAMBO is what Kadachnikov taught. He might even have an old Kadachnikov manual published in Russia. He also mentioned that the skill was basically underground and taught to small circles. To join one of the clubs you had to register with the police. He got in because my Grandfather was an ex-military guy and knew many of the people. In fact now that I look back on it the stuff my grandfather showed me as a kid was systema like and he called it sambo. I know this sounds BS but this is exactly what I was told over the dinner table today.

that's the first time I've ever heard an accurate corroboration of something like Alex Barakov's narrative. He, my teacher, trained with the people he trained with because he was a Spetz-reservist who knew some people who knew some people...

One of the basement gyms they had, there was a local who would sit by the door/entrance. If a party hack came by, the local would ring a doorbell that would alert Alex&co. if they were training in a "non-approved style" they'd have enough time to adjust before the politico came inside.

Thanks mate! I'm so much happier hearing this than the monastery/Special Forces über-fighter/improbable lineage versions I've heard, it is very validating.